×Comments for this thread are now closed.
conservativesonfire5 years ago Work and reward versus reward without work. The Devil's job gets easier and easier.Anonymous5 years ago see moreCole Porter saw all of this coming, and made a note of it about eighty years ago in Anything Goes:
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked in a something shocking
Now Heaven knows
Anything goes.
"Good authors too, who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.
The world's gone mad today
Good's bad today
Black's white today
Day's night today
Most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos ..."
I saw it for myself in the early Sick-sties:
All of sudden -- or so it seemed -- Up was down. Light was dark. Truth was a lie. Virtue was evil. Vice was virtuous. Beautiful was ugly. Modesty was obscene. Neatness was out. Sloth was in, etc.
This occurred, of course, because of the machinations of the Cultural Marxists who remain the most potently destructive force ever to hit our shores. They quickly infiltrated, permeated and took over every means of mass communication imaginable and busily set about "reinventing" the culture, a term that should now be spelled with a capital-K.
I stated that normal American culture has become deracinated yesterday, and was told I didn't know what I was talking about by a very smart individual who always talks as though he already knew everything there is to know, and has, therefore, the authority to straighten all the rest of us out.
Sorry, but it was HE who hadn't a clue. I'll wager, no one under fifty-five -- and few even at sixty -- begins to know what has been done to us by these demonically clever schemers and manipulators.
What's perfectly "normal" and more-than-acceptable to most people today remains abnormal and frankly repugnant to me, because for good or for ill I still remember how things were, and still know who I am and how I got there.
If ever there was proof needed of cultural deracination surely it may be found the court-mandated green light given to the porn industry and the viral proliferation -- and widespread acceptance -- of this dispiriting phenomenon that quickly followed.
The success of the Cultural Marxists has been so spectacular that its victims do not begin to realize they are victims.
The deception only becomes more powerful and all-pervasive with each succeeding generation.
That legendary Little Boy's proverbial "finger" was forcibly removed from the "dike" by court order. As a result, all of "Holland" is now under "water."
I miss "Holland!" All those tulips, creaky old windmills and plump, golden-headed girls in wooden shoes wearing dirndls and starched white-winged caps were rather attractive.
Well, how could you possibly miss something you've never seen, and never knew existed?
SAD!
~ FreeThinkeAnonymous5 years ago A new slogan just occurred:
A PORN NATION is a POOR NATION!
Bumperstickers anyone?
~ FTChristopher - Conservative Per5 years ago Silver,
Although I tend to agree here I am left to wonder about the pic of Raquel you chose to post, why not stick with just a face shot to further her point on the "mystery"?
That said, I am not complaining being I have been a fan of hers for decades but also see a little hypocrisy in her statements as evidenced by the photo which is just one of thousands of her completely manufactured for "eye-candy" or #1 in the definition of pornography.Silverfiddle5 years ago Christopher: It's a bikini shot and is nowhere near porn. Been to a beach lately?
It's interesting that this 60's sex symbol never did any nude scenes (although she did do sex scenes that left it to the imagination), that I'm aware of, and the closest she got to posing nude was a Playboy shoot that is tame compared to what you see in Maxim today.
I am not a prude, Christopher. That picture is sexy but tasteful.Jersey McJones5 years ago You're kind of all over the place here, Silver, but the stink of partisanship overrides it all and I think that's a shame, as you would have a food point without it.
JMJBunkerville5 years ago Not much different than the way the Roman Empire ended their brief moment of being top dog.Silverfiddle5 years ago Jersey: You're mighty sensitive for such a foul-mouthed character.
Partisan? Do you see everything through political lenses? You must have a dirty conscience.Anonymous5 years ago Bunkerville,
I wouldn't call Rome's period of ascendancy "a brief moment."
1. Rome was founded in 753 B.C. A Monarchy lasted from 753 - 509 B.C. In 509 B.C. the Roman Republic began. It ended in 27 B.C. The Empire ended in 476 A.D.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/W...
2. Timeline of the Ascent, Decline, Fall and post-Empire history of Rome ending at 1461 A.D.:
http://www.scaruffi.com/pol...
753 B.C - 1,461 A.D. counts as a looooong time, and Rome is still going strong as one of the world's great capital cities. The population of Italy today is 57,000,000 -- still a sizable chunk of humanity.
Do you realize that there are only about 12,000,000 Jews in the entire world. The Jewish population of New York City equals or possibly exceeds that of Israel -- or so I've always been told.
A thousand years may be no more than "an evening gone" in God's Sight, but it's still a pretty substantial chunk of time in human history. Rome lasted a great deal longer than the British Empire and certainly much longer than our truly brief 225 year history as a sovereign nation.
The pressure to cede our sovereignty to an eventual World Government is very great.
May God forbid it from ever happening.
BUT, nothing's "static," so it's very likely we will soon go the way of all the great civilizations of the past -- only our tenure as "top dog" will have been briefer by far than any of the others.
We may be the first who actually permitted itself to be inveigled into committing SUICIDE.
~ FreeThinkeAnonymous5 years ago see moreSilverFiddle your points about Raquel Welch's appearance in a bikini are well taken. Anyone who "has it" to that high a degree really ought to flaunt it by all that's holy.
Have you seen pictures of the lady lately? She's over seventy now, and STILL extraordinarily beautiful. So is Sophia Loren, by the way. On the other hand Brigitte Bardot, "the most luscious broad who ever lived" according to many men of my generation, looks like an overweight wizened up peasant woman on her last legs. Go figger!
My grandmothers may have thought girls in bikinis bordered on the obscene, but then THEIR mother's though exposing so much as an ankle or a forearm to public view was going too far.
At the height of the Victorian Era -- a dark, dreary almost suffocatingly hypocritical period for which I have no misplaced nostalgia -- it was fashionable for decent women to make little lace-trimmed petticoats to put on the legs of their PIANO's for God's sake.
Things can, indeed go too far in ANY direction.
But again I will quote Shakespeare:
"There is nothing either right or wrong but thinking makes it so."
Obscenity -- like beauty -- may well be in the eye of the beholder.
Why is the Venus de Milo -- and countless other statues from classical antiquity -- NOT considered obscene?
Why do we find it easy to accept representations of naked men with their genitals exposed on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but going to see the place in a bikini or a thing would be completely unacceptable?
Why do these questions still occupy our consciousness?
~ FreeThinkeAnonymous5 years ago Jersey,
What is a "food point?"
I have to admit you've piqued my curiousity.
~ FTZ5 years ago Sex isn't sexy without some mystery; I agree with James Coburn.
"Porn takes a beautiful gift from God and cheapens it." That's something I've always believed is happening to our kids today, when sex is SO cheap and so touted in films and TV. They won't even know the beautiful gift because it's been tainted and some will be so bored by the time they're 20.
I remember getting a 'funny email' photo of a huge fraternity house with all its members standing in a big group shot, on bleachers, etc....there were about 5 college girls in the front posing with their blouses up off their breasts, big taunting smiles on their faces.. I couldn't help wonder just how much sex they'd all had if 5 18yr old girls with no tops on wasn't pulling the guys' eyes away from the camera and how much sex the girls had already had that would prevent them from the complete and rightful shyness girls for centuries would have felt in that position. So sad.Anonymous5 years ago see moreOh, I don't know about that, Z. Dorothy Parker gave us quite a different -- more realistic, less lugubrious, and far more honest -- slant on the subject of sex -- one with which I find myself much in sympathy:
The Little Old Lady In Lavender Silk
I was seventy-seven, come August,
I shall shortly be losing my bloom;
I've experienced zephyr and raw gust
And (symbolical) flood and simoom.
When you come to this time of abatement,
To this passing from Summer to Fall,
It is manners to issue a statement
As to what you got out of it all.
So I'll say, though reflection unnerves me
And pronouncements I dodge as I can,
That I think (if my memory serves me)
There was nothing more fun than a man!
In my youth, when the crescent was too wan
To embarrass with beams from above,
By the aid of some local Don Juan
I fell into the habit of love.
And I learned how to kiss and be merry -- an
Education left better unsung.
My neglect of the waters Pierian
Was a scandal, when Grandma was young.
Though the shabby unbalanced the splendid,
And the bitter outmeasured the sweet,
I should certainly do as I then did,
Were I given the chance to repeat.
For contrition is hollow and wraithful,
And regret is no part of my plan,
And I think (if my memory's faithful,
There was nothing more fun than a man.
~ Dorothy Parker
The lines that have stayed with me since I first discovered this gem:
Though the shabby unbalanced the splendid,
And the bitter outmeasured the sweet,
I should certainly do as I then did,
Were I given the chance to repeat.
"To everything there is a season, and a time and purpose to everything under the sun ..."
~ Ecclesiastes
We find wisdom if we learn how to recognize -- and accept -- when these seasons begin and end.
At least in our decadent Bourgeois society widows are not expected to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres -- yet.
A bit less tongue-clucking and great deal more counting of blessings are surely in order, I should think.
~ FreeThinkeAnonymous5 years ago “You know what’s the sexiest thing of all? A little mystery.”
The photo is in fact simply lovely.
Nudity, if correctly presented, can be art whilst being sexy as it can be erotic and yet not pornographic (in the sense that we know it today).
Today the word pornographic represents passing the line into unwarrented lust and touching the forbidden as apposed to being a little bit suggestive of it.
Perhaps I am old school, but naked or fully exposed does not turn me nor do I consider even the tiny bikini to be pornography in itself. I consider a smooth long leg and thigh or a smooth exposed shoulder sexier than an exposed "boob". Like art, it comes down to the overall presentation AND reason behind it.
That is why, James Coburn is in many ways correct, the mystery is often the more sexy because what we cannot see our imaginations can fill in - and that image we produce will suit our own tastes of what is sexy.....
Damien CharlesDucky's here5 years ago As usual, Freethinker blames cultural Marxism for everything, including the proliferation of pornography.
May I recommend a film. Should be available on Netflix.
The Pornographers by Shohei Imamura.
Rest easy, there isn't anything explicit in it. But compared to a piece of crap like Boogie Nights it manages an adult treatment of the subject. And this is going to amaze you, Freethinker, but it absolutely wails on Kapitalism as the source.
You'll find much the same done even better but with a little less humor in Godard ( My Life to Live , 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her but he is the master at deconstructing pop culture.
Interesting that the profitable American entry here is the exploitative piece of junk.
But Imamura does a fine job of developing the idea that sex is an economic driver and Godard pretty much nails it as nothing but another commodity to Kapital.
So where do we go Freethinker? Thing is, I'm aware of the right's arguments on this matter and they aren't convincing. You just play the cultural Marxism card and ignore mine.Anonymous5 years ago see moreI wonder how many are aware that Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is one of the "sexiest" books ever written?
No one disrobes. No one indulges in lurid gestures, suggestive remarks or "inappropriate" touching. Everyone speaks and behaves in the most decorous manner perfectly in accord with the style and custom of the period, and yet one feels the attraction -- and the growing sexual tension -- between Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy from the moment they meet. One also feels longing -- and even anguish -- at the the thought that their obvious need and growing affection for one another beneath the tissue-thin veneer of what-appears-at-first-to-be hostility might not be fulfilled.
True sexual attraction and the fulfillment of yearnings -- not for sex, itself, but for union with a particular, very special individual -- is a rare and wonderful thing -- the Pearl of Great Price as a matter of fact. But the idea that it could not happen unless one remains "pure" and retains one's virginity, until The Wedding Night is patently absurd.
Of course one must WANT that in order to find it. I would agree that our present culture of casual and careless attitudes towards everything has a dulling effect.
I'll never forget reading about hippy life in Haight Ashbury back in the Sick-sties when all that was still "new." Some long-haired, sweat-soaked imbecile was asked if "communal sleeping arrangements" meant that he was having sexual contact with other men as well as the women since all members of the commune felt they "belonged" to each other?
I'll never forget his answer, which still shocks me today:
"Sure, man! What hell! Skin's skin, ain't it?"
If it hadn't been for the mind-numbing effects of satanic Rock 'n Roll combined with all that marijuana and LSD and God-knows-what-all-else, succumbing to the lure of Forbidden (fermented) Fruit would every likely never appeared so "easy" and so "natural."
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUW!!! Thinking about that era always makes my flesh crawl.
~ FreeThinkeDucky's here5 years ago Damn, I had a good post lost by something in the software.
Anyway, I see you enjoyed Bowling Alone , Silver. Kinda depressing, no?
It goes to a concern I have with Libertarianism. I don't believe it is possible for a community to survive everyone doing there own thing.
Now, the oligarchs care nothing for norms. They respect very few and will do anything for gain, yet these are the people folks like z think will get us back on track. Pardon my chuckle.
Working class folks used to behave more in line with community norms and that is disappearing. A real problem and you will blame the welfare state.
SHOCK AND AWE !!! I rather agree but it has moved me more towards Democratic Socialism and that would be a touchy discussion.
So here we are again. We agree on some of the very critical problems of the culture. However, I simply can't understand why folks feel Kapital and the Calvinist moralists can do anything but lead us further into the weeds.
Dilemma.Ducky's here5 years ago Freethinker, I've always found class problems in Austen. Women are constantly in a bind because daddy can't come up with the cash. He's been off making bad investments or the like.
Austen is often a good demonstration that the nature of marriage is complex and in Austen's day was heavily concerned with the transfer of property.
Of course when the lower classes tried to cross class lines watch out. Best to go to the Child ballads, Wagoner's Lad, Anachie Gordon etc.Jack Camwell5 years ago I didn't realize people still believed in Satan . . .
I thought we all figured out by now that "temptation" is merely our own bad desires and that giving in to those desires is simply a result of our (often times) frail human nature.
Believing that some ethereal creature tempts us is fairly ridiculous and takes a lot of culpability off humans.
The logic simply does not add up. There is no being that creates desire in our hearts. The desire is already there by virtue of our physiology. What we desire is in large part due to our brain chemistry and architecture. You can argue against that all you want, but you would be arguing against some fairly hard science.
So since we know that desire is a result of our brains, not some mythical creature, then how can Satan tempt us? If you're a glutton, does that mean all food that you see was somehow created by Satan to tempt you? If you are lustful, does that mean that Satan created women's bodies and made them sexy just to tempt you?
Satan is a literary device. It's a personification of the potential darkness of the human soul and our propensity to fulfill our bad desires.
No comments:
Post a Comment